A hundredth re-read of the LotR

[Nogrod]

After some discussions in the Anyone want to join me in a rerun? -thread in CbC we'll open a new one.

We'll go chapter-by-chapter but we will keep it in this very same thread all a long starting with Concerning hobbits.

The idea is to go with a pace of a chapter per week speed with no one responsible to do any groundwork or introductionary speeches. So everyone is welcomed to share their views here - and to take an inspiration of reading the LotR once again and sharing one's ideas about it.

If and when we start right now it will mean that from an exact week on from now on anyone will be able to post thoughts on the A Long Expected Party. But this week from this on we'll devote ourselves to the Concerning Hobbits.

As we (hopefully) reach the point where the previous re-read halted we will discuss whether to then join the earlier CbC-threads or whether to continue it here in this one.

Let's go then.

[Nogrod]

I don’t know what got into me but suddenly I realised that I was reading the Concerning Hobbits through something like the “lenses of social concern” and a “dangerous-romanticism-radar” on. It was not intended but I couldn’t help it. Maybe I’m just growing old?

I’d like to start with the latter as the former spills over to the first chapter as well…

The description of the Fallohides is the most telling one. They were the least numerous (the noble class which always is the minority… they must be… the majority can’t be celebrities or royalties anyway as it is conceptually impossible for all to be so) and what else?

The Fallohides were taller & slimmer, fair skinned & fair-haired, they loved the trees (like prof. himself) and were closest to the elves of all hobbits, they were the northerly branch of hobbits (nordischen erbe?), had more skill in language and song, were hunters rather than farmers, bolder and more adventurous (without the adventurous hobbits the ME would have been plunged into the darkness) and they were often the leaders of different hobbit-clans after they mixed with the others.

So they were the “heroes”, the great hobbits – like the Tooks or the masters of Buckland.

What were the others? The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter; friends of the dwarves. The Stoors were broader and heavier in build; more friends of men.

A neat triad where no one is but nice but yet one “breed” (Tolkien’s own word) is clearly greater than the others. And the qualities they possessed were clearly meant to be understood by the reading public as superior to the other two. It’s then not a surprise that those qualities that make the Fallohides so great are those of the educated & civilised people of the early 20th century. The way the Nazis and the Stalinists exploited those ideals is just a pain to witness… but they are more or less the same. And it is with an uneasy feeling I compare Tolkien’s description of the Fallohides with the ideals of intellectuals like Heidegger and Jünger – or with the nazis or fascists of Italy during the 30’s if one drops the serenity and non-violence of Tolkien aside.

So a common ground then? That’s what I have been wrestling with Heidegger a long time (I studied his philosophy quite extensively at the University) and I must say I face the same problem with Tolkien. I love them both but I feel insecure with the possible implications…

~~~

Another thing concerns the “ordering of the Shire”. Tolkien describes it as place where there was hardly any government, families for the most part managed their own affairs and the system was unchanging (like in Plato’s Republic!). And even if they had no contacts with the Kingdom they did stick to the laws of the King as they were “The Rules”, both ancient and just.

Now think of a place where this would be reality today, 2008 AD. The Pakistani outskirts and Afganistan come to mind, or rural Somalia… Following the tradition without asking it’s justification just because it’s the “the rules” and these rules of old must be just if they are called the rules? And no government, no taxes, no welfare because the community will look after the drop-outs? But how about when the drop-out thinks differently than the community? What happened to the different hobbits? Were homosexual hobbits tolerated, not to ask accepted? Or what about if there were “Rules” of old that oppressed certain fractions of the community? Like the poor? Like women?

Bilbo just decided to take Frodo under his protective wing. Great, one says and with reason. Nice to see he was such a lovely character as to pick one person up who was going down and to bring him up to the surface again. But it could be seen as a random social inequality as well (How about the other cousins? Did anyone give them a good-life? Why weren’t Bilbo’s “non-cousins” eg. other poor justified for a good life?). How moral is a social organisation of a community that relies on a whim of eccentric millionaires?

~~~

Okay here I go to my second topic… Tolkien paints a very rosy picture of the Hobbits. As rosy as you can get I’d say. And many people tend to think the hobbit-society is something like an ideal for us all today (what Tolkien thought about it is another thing). But he also writes, that “by no means all Hobbits were lettered” revealing the fact that the Shire was not an ideal place for everyone. Also some Hobbits were exceedingly wealthy and some were poor. Why don’t we have any tales of the poor or their suffering in the Shire? The LotR and the Silm are stories about the heroes and the upper-class. And many times someone's heroism is the downfall of the meek. Just think of Robin Hood... what happened to the peasants after his raids on the rich? They suffered even more.

In A Long-Expected Party Tolkien writes in the very beginning about Bilbo having “many devoted admirers among the hobbits of poor and unimportant families”… Unimportant families? It is possible to interpret that as Tolkien just saying that some of the Bilbo-devoteés were not bold, beautiful and rich but from the class beneath those of the “hero-class”. And he might be just describing the situation in the fantasy world made by himself with no moral connotations. But somehow it feels like there’s a normative element in the text as well. That’s the way it should be? Some are born heroes others are born to mediocrity or losers (add here the things concerning the Fallohides)?

~~~

Yes, I know I’m “accusing” Tolkien of sins that were thought of as sins only after he wrote his stories (or parallel to his writing them). And I do love the stories and I do love Tolkien.

But when you love something you must be ready to challenge your love as well to see the problems. Like a parent loves his children despite the defects of the child he sees – although the parallel fails in that it’s hard to figure oneself as a “father” of Tolkien.



PS. I will not post like this further on. It's just that the Concerning Hobbits is a general description of a folk bringing forwards an social and political ideal and thence it requires a social-political thought to try and understand it - in my opinion.

[wispeight]

I think that was a great writing. I need to find out more on this, Heidegger. I'm not familiar with the name. Auguste Comte is still a highly revered name here in America within certain circles. Your mention of Plato's "Republic" made Comte and Positivism come to mind. I notice the names that you mention when speaking of socialism and communism. It is my opinion that Woodrow Wilson used Europe as a laboratory for his socialism experiments. I believe Germany won WWI and was willing to call and end to it. Everything simply returning to the way it was before the war started. We had no necessity at all for entering into it.

In regard to Tolkien, I'm going to suggest that he was simply providing a beautiful portrait of how agrarian life can manifest itself. In these venues, certain things like homosexuality were simply not spoken about. One simply did not speak of certain things. When society wants to exalt certain things, to make them seem proper, I don't feel the need to rise up against it, but I also don't have to make it a part of my karma by claiming it is normal and proper behavior. I get the feeling that people trying to manufacture a utopian society are kind of hive minded. Then I begin to think on the word Elemental for some odd reason. Compulsion and coercion also pop up. Immaturity is another.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Yes, I know I’m “accusing” Tolkien of sins that were thought of as sins only after he wrote his stories (or parallel to his writing them). And I do love the stories and I do love Tolkien.

But when you love something you must be ready to challenge your love as well to see the problems. Like a parent loves his children despite the defects of the child he sees – although the parallel fails in that it’s hard to figure oneself as a “father” of Tolkien.

PS. I will not post like this further on. It's just that the Concerning Hobbits is a general description of a folk bringing forwards an social and political ideal and thence it requires a social-political thought to try and understand it - in my opinion.

Great post, Nogrod.

Obviously you are not the first to raise these concerns regarding Tolkien's works and you won't be the last either. That "The Scourge of the Dark Side"-thread immediately springs to mind, along with a few lectures I've received from friends. I suppose that the "sin" Tolkien committed (according to our modern sensibilities) is generalising about different groups of people and comparing them to each other. This, of course, is a common theme throughout his works and all peoples and races have an elite group greater than their kin-folk. The Elves have their Noldor, the Men the Dunedain or Numenorians, the Dwarves the Longbeards, the Hobbits the Fallohides, even the Goblins have a master race in the Uruk Hai.

So the Fallohides were a northern branch of Hobbits; taller, blonder, bolder and generally greater than the others. The Dunedain also share many of these characteristics and are also found in the North-west. You are intimating that there is an analogy between these fictional master-peoples of the North-west and the English or perhaps rather the people of Western Europe and I tend to agree. This analogy can't have been unintentional. Did Tolkien feel that the peoples of Western Europe were greater and more noble than the invading hoards of the far East and the dark savages of the South? Possibly. Perhaps he took a Euro-centric perspective because it would feel more authentic that way as a genuine mythology but I find it hard to believe he didn't mix up his personal feelings into it too.

More to the point: should we condemn Tolkien if he thought the tall and noble peoples of North-western Europe were "greater" than other peoples in the world. I'm not so sure of this. To express this view today (ie my people is better than other people) is not politically correct to say the very least and I'm becoming nervous just discussing it here. In light of the heinous crimes committed against humanity by Hitler and many others who were not Caucasians from North-western Europe who justified their actions with ideas of racial or cultural supremacy this is very understandable.

What pardons Tolkien in my mind is that he never wrote a single line that justifies one person's or people's right to take anything away from another person or people because of relative "greatness". Great or small, all are within the law in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Sure, the Numenorians or Gondorians fex. had colonial tendencies, but this is never condoned by the authors voice in any way, only described factually. I'm reminded of Legate's thread about power: even if a character is mighty beyond comprehension like Gandalf he has no right to use that power to take what he wants, however benign he might be. Greatness does not give one the right to dominate the lesser against their will.

Edit: A thing I'd like to add or expand on rather is that being great or mighty isn't necessarily connected to being good. Throughout the stories the one thing that determines a character's true value if you wish is the moral choices he or she makes. Although the Noldor or the Dunedain are the greatest of the Elves and Men respectively, they often do rash and unjust deeds that in no way is justified by their "greatness". While Feanor is the greatest of the Noldor he is certainly not the best. Samwise on the other hand is a common gardener and not mighty or great at all, but still he is one of the biggest heroes of the story.

I think this is a nice point actually. Although our modern enlightened society forbids us to discuss it, the truth is that some are endowed with more than others, and no amount or socialism or progressive politics can change that fact. Some are born into rich, well-educated families and grow up good looking and intelligent. Life offers these lucky individuals many opportunities and treats. Others draw a blank in the genetic lottery and grow up somewhat dim-witted and ugly. If they also lack the benefits of a supportive family or society life will often treat them hard. But I think that it's important to remember that they still can be good people. The dim-witted, ugly and poor fellow can easily be a "better" person than the beautiful, smart and rich if he/she makes better moral choices and lives a life respecting and helping others.

But maybe I'm making too much of this...

[Nogrod]

Fine post as well Skip!

Originally Posted by skip spence

The dim-witted, ugly and poor fellow can easily be a "better" person than the beautiful, smart and rich if he/she makes better moral choices and lives a life respecting and helping others.

But maybe I'm making too much of this...

Not at all! It's nice to see that what you just say there is in a way one of the central themes of the whole book where little hands will to do the great deeds... even if those little hands belong to the mighty of the little...

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm reminded of Legate's thread about power: even if a character is mighty beyond comprehension like Gandalf he has no right to use that power to take what he wants, however benign he might be. Greatness does not give one the right to dominate the lesser against their will.

Those last words, skip spence, pretty much sum up the Hobbit's themselves. When I was reading Concerning Hobbits Tolkien immediately gives you the feeling of the hobbits being different people in terms of their legal system. It starts off by telling us by explaining that Hobbits were not much different from men, in their characteristics, but when they formed the Shire all that changed. I won't preach about what you already know, and is explained in the book.

That change from being diligent to becoming lax and slothful gives rise to my opinion of Hobbits just being overgrown kids. While under the king they worked hard and were sometimes renowned for doing great things, much like a child under a parent, but that all soon faded when put under their own leadership, if you can call it leadership at all there was basically no governing ruler for the Hobbits (besides that of good old common sense) save only in name. Yet there seems to be a great deal of spirit left in the Hobbits from the good old days, as seen with the Tooks, and if they're given the opportunity (or cast into it like Bilbo was) they can mature and accomplish things well beyond what one would expect.

[Thinlómien]

I haven't managed to have a look at Concerning Hobbits yet, so I'll refrain from the actual discussion, but I have a practical question instead. Can we still talk about previous chapters later? Like, if it happened that I didn't have time to read Concerning Hobbits and write about it this week, should I still write about it here next week when others are discussing A Long Expected Party? Or should I just post on the CbC thread for Concerning Hobbits?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Those last words, skip spence, pretty much sum up the Hobbit's themselves. When I was reading Concerning Hobbits Tolkien immediately gives you the feeling of the hobbits being different people in terms of their legal system. It starts off by telling us by explaining that Hobbits were not much different from men, in their characteristics, but when they formed the Shire all that changed. I won't preach about what you already know, and is explained in the book.

That change from being diligent to becoming lax and slothful gives rise to my opinion of Hobbits just being overgrown kids. While under the king they worked hard and were sometimes renowned for doing great things, much like a child under a parent, but that all soon faded when put under their own leadership, if you can call it leadership at all there was basically no governing ruler for the Hobbits (besides that of good old common sense) save only in name. Yet there seems to be a great deal of spirit left in the Hobbits from the good old days, as seen with the Tooks, and if they're given the opportunity (or cast into it like Bilbo was) they can mature and accomplish things well beyond what one would expect.

Well, it's hardly fair too call the Hobbits lax and slothful. By all accounts they worked hard with their respective trade and made the Shire into a rich and well-tended part of ME. Actually, whereas the development in other parts of ME seemed to go backwards, the Shire is the only place we read about where things seem to improve with the passing of the years. The Hobbits of old fex. lived in simple burrows while at the time of the War of the Ring most of them had nice, comfortable houses or holes. Of old they also had no written records, whereas most can read and write at the time of Bilbo and many own books and write letters.

The fact that they had no army or police is hardly something they should be blamed for either. For over one and a half millennia they'd only experienced a few minor skirmishes on the border and while many armies in time become a power serving mostly its own interests this is hardly a good thing and we should applaud the Hobbits for realising they needed none, at least for many a long years. Also, a land without cops is to many of us a utopia

I agree with Nogrod though that the rosy picture painted by Tolkien isn't very realistic and had The Shire been a real place not all would be so happy living under "the rules of old".

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Well, it's hardly fair too call the Hobbits lax and slothful. By all accounts they worked hard with their respective trade and made the Shire into a rich and well-tended part of ME. Actually, whereas the development in other parts of ME seemed to go backwards, the Shire is the only place we read about where things seem to improve with the passing of the years. The Hobbits of old fex. lived in simple burrows while at the time of the War of the Ring most of them had nice, comfortable houses or holes. Of old they also had no written records, whereas most can read and write at the time of Bilbo and many own books and write letters.

I admit I went a too far calling Hobbits slothful, but Tolkien dosen't give the impression that Hobbits are hard workers. We can see this in Bilbo's mentioning of Pipeweed and how the Hobbits have mastered it to a fine "art" (sounds like they have a lot of time on their hands).

The Shire, is in my opinion, a traditionalists paradise. Bilbo says that change comes slowly in Shire, and I think that this represents Tolkien's traditionalist views. Wouldn't it be great to live in a place were things don't change!

Originally Posted by Skip Spence

The fact that they had no army or police is hardly something they should be blamed for either.

The fact that they had no army was because the Dunedein Rangers patrolled their borders and kept undfriendly things out. They might not have needed an army while they were still protected by the Rangers, but the peace that they had always experienced in the Shire was taken for granted. The scouring of the Shire might have been prevented if they did have some sort of army to prevent Saruman and his hordes from pouring in when the Dunedein when south to join Aragorn.

I'm done now, so we can move along whenever we feel like it, or we can keep on disscussing until then.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I admit I went a too far calling Hobbits slothful, but Tolkien dosen't give the impression that Hobbits are hard workers. We can see this in Bilbo's mentioning of Pipeweed and how the Hobbits have mastered it to a fine "art" (sounds like they have a lot of time on their hands).

That has to do with the "natural pace" of an agricultural society which Tolkien surely has been familiar with unlike we 21st century Westerners. Unlike in cities of today in the agrarian countryside the year was quite nicely sliced between times of 24/7 work phases (like ploughing & sowing in spring and harvesting in late summer, the times when the animals gave birth, when the repairs had to be made before the winter, when the berries, fruit & mushrooms riped, when the beer / wine had to be made as the crops/grapes were ready etc.) and then the lazier times (like midwinter etc.).

So one worked like mad on certain times of the year and on others one idled - or at least didn't have it so rough. That's the time they built their furniture, all the decorations, new clothes, telling stories, playing games... maybe cultivating pipeweed as well?

Originally Posted by Groin

The Shire, is in my opinion, a traditionalists paradise. Bilbo says that change comes slowly in Shire, and I think that this represents Tolkien's traditionalist views. Wouldn't it be great to live in a place were things don't change!

I agree with you about the Shire being a "traditionalist paradise" but tend to doubt the 100% bliss of it...



-----

Originally Posted by Groin

I'm done now, so we can move along whenever we feel like it, or we can keep on disscussing until then.

Even if the discussion is slowish, let's wait for a few days to see if others wish to join - or we get new ideas. Also it would be nice if we'd have a clear and steady "deadline" when things change so that people would get used to it and know when we change the Chapter.

(Ha-ha, I'm just arguing for stability after saying I wouldn't like to live in a stabile society... but hey, I was calling for the stability of change! )

So how about changing the Chapter on Friday / Saturday as the thread was started around then?

Originally Posted by Lommy

Can we still talk about previous chapters later? Like, if it happened that I didn't have time to read Concerning Hobbits and write about it this week, should I still write about it here next week when others are discussing A Long Expected Party? Or should I just post on the CbC thread for Concerning Hobbits?

I think the initial idea was to make a re-read together so it would be nice if we all could advance with about a same pace. But if the discussions are this easy and slow it should be no problem to go back to some issues when someone is coming a little behind. But I mean "a little" behind. You probably see that if we're discussing the breaking of the fellowship then a discussion on pipeweed or Bilbo's birthday party (without an interesting link to the Breaking...) would be a bit out of the context.

Finally we were thinking of joining the CbC threads when we reach the point the previous re-read halted - or then not. Depending on how this goes. This far it looks pretty nice but we could have more people around.

[Nogrod]

A bit lighter opening to chew...

Has anyone of you noticed this little curiosity?

The part 1 ends talking about the hobbits delighting themselves in things that were accurate (the family trees and all their niceties); "set fair and square" - giving the air of hobbits being nearing precisionists in things relating to their history and organisation. Now the whole account of the Prologue is just about the ordering of the hobbit-kin and telling their history and the organisation of their Shire - which they were especially keen to have "fair and square".

And what happens after that in the book ?

Chapter 2 of the Prologue is 1+ pages of detour into the separate history of the pipeweed coming totally out of the blue... only to come back to the path of telling the story of the hobbits in an ordered fashion in chapter 3 "Of the Ordering of the Shire"!

Surely this was not unintentional by Tolkien?

So was it just a joke - something he had a good laugh with? And if yes, to what kind of laughter does it point at? Was he just laughing with sympathy, Gandalf-like, to the funny little hobbits he loved so much (Frodo / Sam / Merry wishing to make a separate entry on that issue just for the importance of the subject matter) or was it a more literary / structural joke referring to Tolkien's almost obsessive relation to the "Short cuts" and "unintentional bypaths" that finally settles the fortunes of the world in his view? In circles not unknown to Tolkien called providence.

Or was it just about the importance of the weed to Tolkien himself? The professor smoked pipe, didn't he?

[Nogrod]

If anyone has time, please post about the first chapter. I'm going to be more than busy up to Monday so don't you wait for me...

[Nogrod]

Okay. I'll start with two thoughts from just the first pages of the chapter to get this rolling again. I probably have time tomorrow to read the rest of it and to hopefully join a discussion already on its way then...


The chapter begins with the description of Bilbo's reputation and stature in Hobitton. Now some said it was unfair that someone was so rich and blessed with such an old age well-preserved.

"It will have to be paid for," they said. "It isn't natural, and trouble will come of it!"

Now one might say here an author is laying grounds for what will come; kind of hinting to the future and the whole affair, setting the gloomy feeling to the background from where it would eventually come forth.

But is it also Tolkien's own world-view? Do good fortunes need to be earned? Is that the way how a rich man justifies his riches; by suffering or fulfilling a noble destiny? Or is it how things should be? Or is Tolkien just posing the question?

So, is there an eventual balance where normal life (Hobitton way) is easier or requires not the heroical sacrifices which in turn justify the more "nobler lifestyles" or opportunities?

Are there theological implications involved? The mainstream christians who just lead their lives and receive the grace with not too much effort or thought of it and then those existentially anguished romantical "burning souls" who need to take their fill which somehow makes their lives at the same time a torment but also much more rich and fulfilling?


A second thought.

Looking at Gaffer Gamgee one easily finds a servant venerating his master who in turn is "very polite" to him. Even if the relation between the two have been described as somewhat informal with a few examples (Bilbo calling Gaffer "Master Hamfast" etc.) one gets a relation of a servant and a master - however benevolent the master is towards his servant - and the servant is acknowleding his place however the master asks for advice from him.

But could you imagine a similar relationship between Frodo and Sam? In a sense, in the beginning of the journey, their relationship is something reminding one of that and Tolkien indeed keeps on reminding us of it throughout the story, oftentimes in Sam's lines and reactions.

But still in the end it's a lot different even if they never get to be kind of equals as Frodo was the Ringbearer and thence of "nobility" of sorts. But is that a same kind of difference? Sam is indeed given some bits and pieces of the nobility - through him bearing the ring for a while at least - and Frodo openly declares his worth by giving him the mastery of Bag End when he leaves.

What kind of intrigues me is that even if they journeyed along and faced all those troubles together - and Sam saved Frodo and the whole mission a few times - they didn't end up as equals even if they ended up as friends rather than just a master and a servant.

(Something which quite bugs me indeed is that Frodo treats Sam like one who is generous, loving, friendly - I'm not denying his earnest feelings of gratitude or friendship even - and Sam goes along the same route, being the one to receive the honour of being treated that way.)

Is the barrier un-breechable? And which barrier is it? Inherited noblesse as a birthright? Fate-ordered thing? Just something growing from their different socio-economic backgrounds?



A third one just to lighten things up.

Don't you think Bilbo turning 111 and Frodo 33 on a same year is just a bit... well how does one say it... "fantasy-like"? Like a bedtime-story or a fairy-tale where all the numbers must match (or Hegelian philosophy for that matter... )? What did the story gain from that instead of Bilbo having his 114th birthday while Frodo turned 31? Is it a reminder that we're now entering the magical kingdom of myths and tales?

[Nogrod]

And btw.

Happy Birthday Bilbo and Frodo!

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think the word you might be looking for is "coincidental" (possibly "contrived"). And perhaps in contriving this remarkable coincidence, Tolkien was making his first essay into the concept that there is no true coincidence in Middle-earth, that all things happen for a reason, even if that reason is never known. Frodo coming of age at this particular time -- when Bilbo was finally feeling the negative effects of keeping the Ring -- made it easier for Bilbo to pass it on to Frodo, along with Bag End and his other possessions. Frodo needed to be old enough to be totally undisputed as Bilbo's heir, and Bilbo needed to be old enough for other hobbits not to question the fact that he never returned (especially since he had gone off once before, and returned at a most inopportune moment for those who had been buying his possessions). Contrived, certainly, but one wonders whose finger within the subcreation caused it to happen in just that convenient, coincidental way.

[Nogrod]

So, from the fitting numbers we get into a world guided by providence? Or is it a world of necessity? Where everything just has to happen the way it does?

Originally Posted by Ibrin

there is no true coincidence in Middle-earth, that all things happen for a reason, even if that reason is never known.

Even if I have quite a strong distaste for Matrix II and III (I liked the first one though) that was a question they brought forwards nicely: the world of the Matrix was just "cause and effect" like the character Merovingian put it (with the necessary anomalies in the form of agent Smith and Neo) but the "real world" was guided by providence; in a very fatalistic way the prophecies just came true - even if the minute details were often baffling and didn't seem to contribute to the greater fate of things.

Yes, this will come more important later in the book when Gandalf voices his concern about pity and letting Gollum live...

But looking at the way one may jump from 111th & 33rd birthday - coincidentally or contrivingly happening - to these considerations it really arouses the question whether Tolkien wished, by the selection of those "fitting" birthdays to address the reader that we are in a fantasy or mythical landscape now and there the providence rules supreme? And whether that as a myth portrays to us more what the world should be like, not what it is like?

To put it in Matrix-terms, is the Middle Earth the "real world" vs. the Matrix of the actual world of natural sciences of cause and effect?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Posted by Nogrod

Looking at Gaffer Gamgee one easily finds a servant venerating his master who in turn is "very polite" to him. Even if the relation between the two have been described as somewhat informal with a few examples (Bilbo calling Gaffer "Master Hamfast" etc.) one gets a relation of a servant and a master - however benevolent the master is towards his servant - and the servant is acknowleding his place however the master asks for advice from him.

But could you imagine a similar relationship between Frodo and Sam? In a sense, in the beginning of the journey, their relationship is something reminding one of that and Tolkien indeed keeps on reminding us of it throughout the story, oftentimes in Sam's lines and reactions.

I really don't see the Shire society, and especially the Gamgees, as
socially and politically rigid as many seem to. After the quest,
Frodo virtually adopts Sam, has Sam inherit Bagend, and Sam
(if he is indeed considered lower class socially) rises to the top
political (and social?) post in the Shire. And the Gaffer seems economically
on a par with Bilbo (not counting Bilbo's Excellent Adventure gold and
silver). To me, the Shire is, by far,in "feel", closest to present times.

Of course, I must say I side with Tolkien, and against just about everybody
else-including a young Rayner Unwin, in quite liking "Hobbit talk,"
and not minding a bit more.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But looking at the way one may jump from 111th & 33rd birthday - coincidentally or contrivingly happening - to these considerations it really arouses the question whether Tolkien wished, by the selection of those "fitting" birthdays to address the reader that we are in a fantasy or mythical landscape now and there the providence rules supreme? And whether that as a myth portrays to us more what the world should be like, not what it is like?

This makes me hear Rod Serling's voice intoning, "There's a signpost up ahead. Next stop...." Middle-earth?

But I do think this might be a reasonable assessment, that Tolkien wished the readers to know that this was no longer what they think of as the "real world," that they had crossed over into the realm of Myth and Legend -- into Faerie. I suspect that this was why his eventual attempts to rethink his myths in terms of real science (as in the "Myths Transformed" portion of Morgoth's Ring), it ultimately failed. He himself -- his creative mind, that is -- had conceived the whole as Myth, and it was too tightly constructed to take it apart and reinterpret it in Real World, scientific terms. It is a world as it should be in terms of its own subcreational reality, not in any other way. The introduction of the hobbits and the Shire incorporates elements that feel like the world we know, but other things, like the coincidental birthdays, wizardly fireworks, and a magic ring let us know that though we have not entirely abandoned the familiar, we are moving into a world that is not our own.

[Groin Redbeard]

I've tried but I just can't come up with anything worth saying for this chapter, other than I enjoyed it! I love all the mentioning of the magical toys made by the dwarves and such.

Although, I did like the way that Tolkien introduces the thought of the Ring being evil with the confrontation between Bilbo and Gandalf. I remember when I read the book for the first time it through me for a spin the way Bilbo reacted.

[Nogrod]

All the playfulness lightens the mood considerably - all those presents given after Bilbo had left with their pointy choices and finding the three young hobbits digging for the treasure etc. bring us back to the innocent or "unspoiled" Hobitton - like one would be in the Hundred-acre Wood...

But the last two pages yet again change the general mood. Discussions of Bilbo's versions of the story and Gandalf's sudden urge to leave while being quite vague but clearly worried about the Ring are a perfect ending for this kind of introductory chapter yet again reminding the reader that there are bigger and more serious things bubbling under the sunny surface.

[Nogrod]

Okay, I'm beginning a new chapter as the discussion is - to put it mildly - a bit slow...

I have indeed been too busy to read all of it yet (believe it or not) but there is a classic in the beginning I'd like to make an observation on to get this running.

It's the row between Sam and Ted Sandyman of course.

It's a great example of a traditionalistic & conservative society facing news / ideas they're not too keen to take in as those things could imbalance the beliefs of the group and their basic security on their shared worldview.

I don't find it too far-fetched to compare the discussion between Sam and Ted to one that could take place in RL in some rural community today.

Think of a youngster that has gone to a big city to study and who comes on holidays back to his childhood village pub and starts to tell people of atoms or quarks - or evolution. The jokes might be quite similar indeed. "Can you see those atom-things? Like in this table? No? So there ain't no such things!" (applauds for a score made from the crowd), "You say these atom-things dance around each other... but this table is staying right where it is. You must have taken a pint too much if it looks to you this table is dancing!" (the crowd bursting to laughter with the wit of that one), or "So we're descended from apes and before that another life-forms you say... well that explains why they said my uncle was a bit fishy!" (the crowds getting wild with appreciation of "proving" these weird thoughts wrong) etc.

Okay. I know some people would interpret this scene between Ted and Sam more readily as a discussion between faith and empiricism - and it might be closer to Tolkien's personal ties as well... but the way he writes this part really seems to draw nicer parallels with the example of modern physics than with belief in God.


Second thought (and I promise my last one on social inequality in Hobitton... I mean I'm getting ashamed of bringing this forth time after another...)

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

the Gaffer seems economically on a par with Bilbo (not counting Bilbo's Excellent Adventure gold and silver).

Now in the beginning of "the Shadow of the Past" it's made quite clear that Frodo is not doing anything for living. He just wanders around and gets anguished (like rich people with nothing to do, do). The Gaffer and his son really need to do work to pay for their living. I wouldn't call that being "economically on par".

At this point in the story a many occupations have been already introduced: there are millers, inn-keepers, gardeners (servants?), cooks, postal workers etc. but clearly Frodo needs to do nothing. He can idle himself from the early morning to the late-night. So there are classes in Hobitton. Some own property and/or treasure enough while the others need to work for their living. The Gaffer may make his living - and probably does - with his own merits aka. work and thence be self-subsistent, but the difference is that Bilbo (or Frodo) need not to.

Now one might argue that Bilbo has earned his wealth with his work (the expedition to the Lonely Mountain) and I'm not too eager to go against it right here - even if it seems he wasn't the poorest hobbit before that either (the question concerning the equality of the starting points is the crucial one for any economic liberalism). But Frodo is just chosen by Bilbo, from a whim one might say, to inherit all - well, most of - he had and so became luxuriously rich with no merit of himself but only that Bilbo happened to like him and his parents got to an accident.

I agree with Tuor in Gondolin that the relations between the classes were not hammered in stone - as the example of Frodo and Sam let us see quite clearly. That was indeed what I was pointing at: that Frodo and Sam broke a pattern there. But for that to happen Frodo had to be the "higher one" to graciously give the part to Sam. If they were equals Frodo could not be generous as they would both be at the same level and neither could "out-present" the other with grace.

Only that one who has power or position over another can indeed be gracious!


PS. Did elves have to work for their living?

[skip spence]

May remind you of this earlier statement of yours, Nogrod.

(my bolding)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

PS. I will not post like this further on. It's just that the Concerning Hobbits is a general description of a folk bringing forwards an social and political ideal and thence it requires a social-political thought to try and understand it - in my opinion.

I´d like to make a few comments on this before I go to bed:

I have indeed been too busy to read all of it yet (believe it or not) but there is a classic in the beginning I'd like to make an observation on to get this running.

It's the row between Sam and Ted Sandyman of course.

It's a great example of a traditionalistic & conservative society facing news / ideas they're not too keen to take in as those things could imbalance the beliefs of the group and their basic security on their shared worldview.

I don't find it too far-fetched to compare the discussion between Sam and Ted to one that could take place in RL in some rural community today.

While I agree with some of what you´re saying I don´t think the points you are making are the main points Tolkien was trying to make. Actually, I don´t think he was trying make a point at all here, no, he was trying to set up a good story and succeeding well I may add.

What Ted and Sam are discussing here is of course Elves, Dragons and Giants, things Ted deems as belonging in bed-time stories for children, not under the sun in the real world. Much like we would had someone suggested that immortal Elves were crossing the seas on the straight path. Despite being habituated by "Hobbits", The Shire feels familiar to us since it is very much like the world we know (or at the very least, the pastoral idyll we would want it to be or have been). There is nothing magical or "unnatural" in the Shire. Therefore the perspective of the Hobbits easily becomes a natural perspective for us too. The things that happens later on is just as amazing to the Hobbits as it would be for us. Although Frodo knows of the Elves he doesn´t think the trees in the old Forest would actually attack him any more than we would fear to be possessed by evil spirits after having heard stories about from it some "native people" somewhere. He also has a very hard time grasping that wraiths of the Dark Lord Sauron could come after him in the Shire. Things like this only happens in the fairy-tales.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Actually, I don´t think he was trying make a point at all here, no, he was trying to set up a good story and succeeding well I may add.

I'm indeed agreeing with you here. I'm not saying Tolkien tried to make a point or another there, but he was probably mainly just laying a nice groundwork to the situation the main characters were in - and what they needed to face in the future while not knowing it themselves as yet to be sure. I mean it was a good point you made about the "adventurous hobbits", even if they were ready or readier to see the larger possibilities of the world (and sure Bilbo and even Frodo had first hand experience of elves and so on), they were still not in the end quite ready for it when it actually came upon them.

But what I was pointing at was merely that the discussion between Ted and Sam reminds one strongly of certain debates people go through in RL and of those I think the prof was not ignorant of - none the less as the first thing coming to one's mind reading the passage is the question regarding the existence of God which Tolkien clearly had faith in.

Like the naïve atheist who says: "you say there is a God, then prove it, show it/her/him to us!" (sounds so like Ted Sandyman!). And that is an easy one, as no one can prove as non-existent anything that is claimed to be immaterial. No one can prove that ösaodjhvöwoefdbh doesn't exist if I say ösaodjhvöwoefdbh is an immaterial being who can't be perceived but manages the whole universe - no more can you prove there is no Spaghetti-Monster behind all of creation (if you've heard of that).

So here: Tolkien - Naïve atheists 1-0

But what caught my mind was that the similar situation arises within "faith-communities" which deny the existence of certain non-seen entities like atoms or quarks - or the non-plain empirical principles of evolution (things that have such a wide scope in time human memory alone can't tell us of it). And looking at the way Tolkien presents the scorn of Ted and the other hobbits supporting him just led me to try a different angle on the whole thing.

And everyone ever lived or visited a traditional community knows full well what Tolkien is at there even if we're not talking about faith or science. Anything new or odd is wrong and only the things the communities are used to are right. In that I think Tolkien might have even tried to "prove a point" but that probably wasn't anything very important - merely a scholarly joke stemming fgrom his own experiences...? Who knows?

But really it was just a trial to look at a thing from a different angle and to arouse new thoughts and not so much trying to prove a point or saying Tolkien tried to prove a point there, or anything like it.


---
Maybe this is a good place for a general declaration of principle just to avoid any future misunderstandings (and I'm not saying skip especially misunderstood me as I think he was right in his criticism by way of pointing at another very plausible intepretation indeed): I'm not writing these things as if I'm trying to uncover what Tolkien "really meant". I don't believe I - or anyone else - has access to that. But I'd love to explore different ways in which one might see things written in the books, or whether there are unexplored perspectives to them we might gain if we looked into them. So I'm only after more fruitful perspectives. If anyone - myself included - gets a new perspective from these then it is a good thing and we have succeeded.

Originally Posted by skip

May remind you of this earlier statement of yours, Nogrod.

Yes you may indeed. And I promise to hold that social-injustice perspective down in the (near) future... maybe when we get to know the elven or dwarven societies - or the orc-ones - I might be tempted to come back to them...

[skip spence]

Yes Nogrod, that dialogue/situation between Sam and Ted is very universal and one that we all can recognise in various situations and contexts. It ain't easy coming with a new idea not established and accepted by the majority, whether this idea is revolutionary and grand dealing with the existence or non-existance of God, atoms or microscopic germs or mundane like how to grow tomatoes or eat a candybar.

Another thing that popped up in my head regarding Chapter Two is that famous verse about the One Ring "One ring to find them and in the darkness bind them..." etc.

Who wrote that verse? It must've been Sauron, no? Wasn't it said that Celebrimbor first perceived that he and the Elves had been betrayed when Sauron first took up the ring and uttered those words? Is this a often forgotten, more sensitive side to the Dark Lord? He isn't all about war, terror and mental domination, he's also a talented writer and poet, isn't he? One wonders if he spent many sleepless hours alone in the top-most turret of Barad Dur, anguishing over the wordings of his poem (One ring to govern them all and in the darkness coerce them! No, it's not good! *The Orcs quiver in fear as the earth trembles with rolling thunder*).

Edit: And yeah, I've also come across the mighty Spaghetti-monster. It's kinda funny ;-)

[Groin Redbeard]

This is one of my favorite chapters in the entire book. Gandalf does an excellent job with recanting his findings to Frodo, it just keeps you on the edge of your seat for the entire time.

I'm probably not going to say anything that hasn't already been said about the conversation between Ted and Sam. Sam is obviously the more "queer" out of the two and this sets up the belief int the readers mind that Sam isn't all that different from Frodo or Bilbo, when it comes to adventure and such. I think this kind of lessens the shock of Sam being "forced" into the journey with Frodo.

Sam I think represents the ordinary man in all of us. He fantisizes about meeting elves and going off on adventures like Mr. Bilbo and doing brave things, but when the time comes Sam finds remourse and excitement. I think we see as the book progresses that Sam's attitude changes towards one of loyalty to Frodo. Of course it was always there in the beginning, but I think that it becomes stronger their adventures become more dangerous and he forgets all the silly notions about meeting elves and trolls and becomes more about protecting his master. I hope I made sense with this.

We see here Gandalf's first visible doubt of Saruman's council. Gandalf talks about for years how he, and the entire White Council, trusted Saruman and his ring lore, but when Saruman basically refuses to let any helpful knowledge be given to the council Gandalf is wary of him. I think that it was even stated that he was misguided and fooled by the councils of Saruman and in the end Gandalf had to go find things himself. Perhaps if Gandalf had known a little bit more he would not be so anxious to answer Saruman's summons to Orthanc. Than again I'm just speculating.

I can't say much for Frodo in this chapter other than he's acting very Bilboish in his stalling to get out of town. Very lucky for him that there was a need to graduily dissapear instead of dissapearing all at once.

As for Sauron being a poet, I'm pretty sure that pretty flowers and lolly-pops were not what he had in mind when creating that poem. Infact it still fills me with dread of what might have happened everytime that I read it. *shudders*

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Is this a often forgotten, more sensitive side to the Dark Lord? He isn't all about war, terror and mental domination, he's also a talented writer and poet, isn't he? One wonders if he spent many sleepless hours alone in the top-most turret of Barad Dur, anguishing over the wordings of his poem (One ring to govern them all and in the darkness coerce them! No, it's not good! *The Orcs quiver in fear as the earth trembles with rolling thunder*).

That was indeed a hilarious idea! Kind of reminded me of the Monty Python sketch where Beethoven tries to come up with how the fifth symphony should begin...


Yes, I agree with Groin that Gandalf's stories are masterfully made in both that they glue the reader's eyes to the pages and kind of prepare things to come while at the same time lifting off the veil of secrecy bit by bit letting the reader into the background story. I remember that when I was younger all these parts where people told these stories that brought some pieces together (like Gandalf here, or like different people in Rivendell) were my favourites. And I enjoyed it once again...

Although I must say that Gandalf's "recitation" is a bit too literal - like a rehearsed and planned lecture which surely is something the prof. was at home with. But surely it is not written in a way anyone would actually talk, not even a wizard...


One more thing before I go to sleep (I'll have a few things to say tomorrow when I have more time in my hands).

Now correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it that the original story of Robin Hood was a story about a hooded robber ("robbing hood" ) which the upper classes sanctified with the "right moral connotations" by changing the lower class unknown hero into Sir Robin of Locksley? Somehow that came into my mind while reading the introduction to Sméagol's family: "There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most". So to be a main character in a story you have to be upper class? *running out of smilies* Like the poor young boy (yes, normally a boy indeed) has to be revealed to be the rightful prince or nobler than his assumed birth would let one to believe?

Okay. Gollum's story about how the Ring came to him uses that fact as he claims first that his wealthy matriarchical grandmother had given the Ring to him as a birthday present. Sure. But had the initial setting been otherwise Tolkien could have come up with another "lie" for Gollum.

It may be a question of intuition - or maybe Tolkien has somewhere discussed this openly - but I kind of sense it the way that Gollum had to be from a family of stature as he was to be a central character in a mythological story, because in mythological stories the central characters are "noble-born". Here Tolkien would then stick to the exact letter of myths. And so the possibility of writing the first lie about his grandma giving it to him as a present arose.

It may sure be the other way around: desperate to come up with a lie Gollum might use, Tolkien thought of Gollum being from a wealthiest family around and thence be able to say it was a gift...

Hah. Lots of words for something at least I have nothing to "prove it" the way or another...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it. There's the saying that if you can't be a good example, you may wind up being a horrible warning, and the image of Gollum -- what Frodo himself could become if he slipped down the path of selfishness and greed -- was, I suspect, a factor in keeping Frodo true to his mission, until the very end. In this chapter, Gandalf tells Frodo of Gollum's history and the fact that Bilbo's mercy toward him may one day rule all their fates. Frodo may not take to these things readily, but the seeds are planted here, and I think it is important that they have nearly the entire length of the book to take root and grow. I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it.
......
I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

That's a good point indeed! It's interesting to note on this that in Gandalf's story Sméagol is first described as "the most inquisitive and curious minded of that family" also "interested in roots and beginnings" and loving the nature. But on the next note of him (after requiring the Ring) he is already described as using the Ring "to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses... The Ring had given him power according to his stature"! So his inquisitiveness had turned into malice - but to say "according to his stature" is not to say according to his "newly found" or "changed" stature... So is his stature already crooked without the effect of the Ring even if it's first described pretty innocentishly? Or is it just the possibility rooted in the inquisitiveness or something? This I kind of wonder.

And still there is something like a general pity on his character in Gandalf's telling of the story all the time it goes on...

Interesting indeed.

[Nogrod]

So much for having more time today... but I'd like to say one thing which at the moment quite intrigues me.

For the story this really is quite an important chapter as it lays the ground for the story to take place but I'm beginning to wonder whether Tolkien also laid the basis of his metaphysical unverse here as well.

In the beginning of the chapter where Frodo asks why would Sauron wish for such slaves as Hobbits Gandalf tries to explain that terrible idea of someone just wishing harm to someone else with: "there is such a thing as malice and revenge".

So we have the evil principles of malice and revenge brought forth.

In the end of the chapter, after learning all the harm Gollum had caused and about the dire threat to himself Frodo curses why Bilbo didn't "stab the vile creature when he had a chance". And Gandalf answers with the two other basic principles of pity and mercy.

So: pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge.

Quite neat pairs indeed to run a universe.


And to top that we can find Gandalf telling Frodo how Bilbo was meant to have it and he succeeded with it, and so by that also Frodo was meant to have it and so on. So there is a benevolent whatever helping things turn out for the good - even if the living beings need to make their best effort and make the right choices if they are to succeed - "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us".

These principles indeed form the backbone of the whole story one might say and the universe in which all our heroes (not just Frodo and Sam) have their trials and tribulations and in where they have to make their choises.

[Boromir88]

Hey, Nogrod, thanks for letting me know about this re-read. I've mostly gotten caught up, so I just wanted to point out several things.

If I may, start back with a Long-Expected Party. Two things that spring to mind here.

First, the idea of having to earn your wealth. Bilbo is wealthy, but Bilbo worked for that wealth. In Gandalf's opinion, killing Smaug and returning the Dwarves to Erebor, was vital in the end victory against Sauron:

"Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here only to ruin and ash. But that has been averted - because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth."~Appendix A: Durin's Folk

To which Bilbo played a part, so why shouldn't he get part of the spoils? Also, you can look at it, in a way, that Bilbo was taking the treasure from Smagu (Edit: Oops, bad typo, but I'll just leave it here...because I believe that Smagu was Smaug's identical twin dragon and thus Smaug was able to escape proving Dragon's still exist in Middle-earth.), who didn't deserve the wealth. What had Smaug done, besides eating and terrifying civilians, to deserve a pleasant retirement on a horde of cash? Plus, Smaug's hording of that wealth and Bilbo's redistribution of it (which I will get to in my next point).

Frodo inherits Bilbo's wealth, and as Nogrod points out for a while sits around and does (or has) nothing to do (afterall Gandalf did tell him to stay put). But we all know that Frodo doesn't do "nothing" through the rest of the story. As opposed to the Sackville-Bagginses, who believed they were entitled to Bilbo's wealth. However, what had they done to deserve Bilbo's inheritance, other than complain that they deserved it?

Secondly, along with being wealthy (also the same applied - at least for a time - noble) there was an expectation of giving back; or in some way, serving. Smaug hordes his wealth, and has no use for it other than to hold on to it, because he believes it's his. Bilbo gives back, and by gives back, it's pointed out that he doesn't "recycle" the mathoms that travel around, he always gives new presents. Despite the belief of the young treasure seekers, or the idea that Gandalf and Frodo designed a plan to run off with Bilbo's wealth, the reality is that doesn't happen.

Let's take the formation of Japan as an example. Merchants socially, and politically, were the scum of society, despite being some of the wealthiest people (at the start they were mostly small, family peddlers, but as Japan became united, we see this what you might call 'pre-capitalism' stage, and merchants began to become very wealthy). Anyway, merchants were below peasants on the social ladder in Japan. Because it was viewed that peasants provided a service to the "community." They were dirt poor, but they were the one's who providal a social need...food and labor. Merchants were viewed as the parasites of society, they lived off other people's wealth and didn't provide anything good for society. This was one big cause to the collapse of the Japanese Empire. As the merchants became wealthier, they still held no social power, and we all know you can't have your wealthiest families at the bottom of the social and political ladder.

Then I guess kind of the quick sum up is, with wealth (or royalty and nobility), comes:

1. The justification that you've earned it.
2. The expectation that you provide service/a giving back to your comminuty.

[Boromir88]

I assume this is going to be a double-post, but I just wanted to break up the two chapters. So...A Shadow of the Past:

So: pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge.

Quite neat pairs indeed to run a universe.~Nogrod

Ooh, me like it.

While, it is hard in circumstances to define "good and evil," I believe there are definite distinctions made. Tolkien writes that he doesn't believe in "absolute evil," there are several grey characters (Denethor, Saruman, Boromir, Gollum), and in writing to Christopher about WWII, making the remark that there are "orcs on both sides."

Nogrod, I really like the set up of pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge, and this chapter looks at the fundamental question of what is right and what is wrong?

I think what we see (and it starts in this chapter) is the reoccuring theme that is it not our place to decide someone's ultimate judgement. In Letter 181, Tolkien's straightforward, and says he does not care to inquire into Gollum's final judgement, it is not his place. He stops (and doesn't send) a letter out talking about orc redemption writing: "It seemed to be taking myself too importantly."

And that is Gandalf's message to Frodo:

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement..."

As we find out it was Bilbo's pity that made him relatively unscathed by the Ring, in contrast with Gollum's belief that the Ring was his and his strong desire for revenge against the thief Baggins.

Also, to point out here, Tolkien's idea of the #1 bad motive:

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

Thus, I think we can even put it in the broader terms of control vs. humility.

The ultimate bad guys want to dominate over everyone, and everything, they want that power to "run the show." Sauron, Morgoth, and Saruman all display the need to be in control. These baddies are all eventually brought to 'justice,'...death.

The supreme good guys are rewarded for the recognition that they are not the one's calling the shots. They know it is not their place to decide who lives and who dies. For even the wisest don't know how everything will play out. Pity and Mercy are the keys, it is Gandalf's, Bilbo's, Frodo's (and so on), recognition they aren't the "deciders."

I don't know, but perhaps it would be good to make some boundaries. Obviously, if Gollum is freely running around and eating babies pity doesn't mean you're going to pretend there's nothing wrong with that. Pity doesn't mean you'll absolve Gollum, Saruman, or any of them of their own accountability. Gandalf is the first to say Gollum (and he also states it about Grima) deserve death, but Gandalf's pity is the acknowledgement that he doesn't decide whether Gollum would die or not. Wth pity, I think comes a hope that since evil is not absolute, than redemption is possible for anyone. Gandalf is the first to admit that Gollum being cured is almost impossible, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible (it's not beyond hope at least):

"There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.

"But that of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end - unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured." Gandalf sighed. "Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope..."

[Nogrod]

Nice to see you around Boro!

And this question of what is fair or justified is a most compelling one - and I just hope I can make this shortish...

Now after the time of Napoleon there has been this idea of meritocracy where every individual should get what they deserve. It's an idea that one earns the goods one gets and that's fair.

Bilbo is a case in point. He struggled and had dreadful adventures and thence it's only right he got what he got, as you say.

But how about Frodo's cousins? They were never given a chance to "show their qualities" as that eccentric Bilbo decided to pick Frodo as his heir. I mean isn't it in a way like Madonna adopting a baby from a third world country? Was it that youngster's merit as an individual that got him taken as an adoptee and to lift just him from poverty and suffering to the utmost luxury there is in this planet?

So was Frodo something like the one who should be immediately put in the front from all his cousins? If you say, yes he had some characteristics from his birth you at the same time rip Frodo's personal merit from the choice as it is something he already has from his birth and to no merit of his own... and if you say it was random then you agree that the opportunities are given randomly and thence are not based on merit...

I mean let's take a parallel. During the eighties, in the garages of the Silicon Valley, there were hundreds if not thousands of nerds creating operating systems for computers. Then this Bill G. just happened to meet the right people at the right time and his format actually got through the competition with the financial aid of corporate level top-guns (like with the old video-cassette formats where the far superior beta-system lost to the VHS with the aid of the porn industry). Now he's one of the richest people on earth. Now should we say that like Bilbo he has earned his fortunes- and that fact that he gives away a host of his treasury is the final justification of his astonishing wealth?

With Mr. Gates and Bilbo we find a shared trait: they got into where they are with chance - and they proved to be able to stand the challenge.

But how about the equality of chances then? As well as some other nerds might have produced us with far more flexible and working operating systems it might have been that Ted Sandyman, Fredegar Bolger, or any of the Frodo's un-named cousins might have been even more succesful ringbearers? I mean in the way of making it with less casualties and with more efficiency...

So is the meritocratic way the way one should look at the justice or fairness? How about the disabled people - are they worth less? Those coming from broken families with alcohol-problems? If they take pains is it their fault? According to the newest studies - those people with less space in their working memory? Are they poor at school because of a dismerit of their own, like because they somehow have earned their position? And those with a large working-memory have earned their good results in learning? Now that is genetic, not earned... and the former case is forced and not chosen...

So can you say that it's up to you what you earn - like what you can merit - and still retain the idea that we are talking about justice or fairness?

[Nogrod]

Thank's for the appreciation Boro. That kind of assures me there's something interesting in there...

I mean yes, there are a host of speculation of things between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and their different views on allegory and parable, on symbolic and mythic tales etc. The prof's uneasiness with things Lewis exploited in the Narnia chronicles come to mind once again.

But also it seems to me it's clear Tolkien is a catholic writer, not a protestant one.

Avoiding the pure Good vs. Evil as too Manichean thought-lines in the world of ours he goes to pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge (so central to the teachings of Jesus!), and adds there the benevolent "something" many Christians call providence... and with the famous line of "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" he then relies on the basic concept of the choice and what will come out of it so central to catholicism compared to protestant churches where according to Luther "nothing we do will make us dearer to God" (that's not a quote but a principle).

[Boromir88]

So can you say that it's up to you what you earn - like what you can merit - and still retain the idea that we are talking about justice or fairness?~Nogrod

There are other standards of merit besides wealth, or family birth. Those are two of the more noticeable ones, but I would also argue beauty, intelligence, humor, fame, public service are other standards (and probably more I haven't mentioned). Wealth is probably the easiest way to have 'merit', but depending upon how a society (and each individual) weighs each of those standards would ultimately decide one's merit.

Bilbo being wealthy certainly didn't bring him respect amongst his fellow hobbits. He was queer and a mad man. But when I read his tale and his sacrifices, I think he deserves to receive a nice retirement package. With merit comes the tremendous pressure of responsibility. As one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away. The Sackville-Baggins may begrudingly think Frodo got lucky being Bilbo's heir, but I doubt Frodo would think himself lucky, with the extreme burden he is given. Would you accept Bilbo's inheritance if you were aware of the responsibility (and pains) that lie ahead?

Some people value the simple life, the Gaffer's life, Sam's life; take Frodo's own words:

"All the same," said Frodo, "even if Bilbo could not kill Gollum, I wish he had not kept the Ring. I wish he had never found it, and that I had not got it! Why did you let me keep it? Why didn't you make me throw it away, or, or destroy it?"~The Shadow of the Past

Or maybe taking Tolkien's idea of the complimentary balance between the "high and noble" and the "simple and vulgar":

A moral of the whole is the obvious one that without the high and noble, the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.~Letter 131

We need our Bill Gates' of the world just as much as we need our garbagemen. We need our Frodos' and our Sams'. Same can actually be said about "evil," a Dark Lord needs his servants, and the servants need a Dark Lord.

Edit: For some reason I think I accidentally hit "enter" and posted before I wanted to.

So, let's have a little discussion on justice and fairness. I'm glad you brought it up Nogrod, for that has been a central philisophical question since the beginning of philosophers. What is justice? What is fairness? And our un-ending search for the Truth.

I won't get into justice, simply because I really wouldn't know where to begin, but it would be great to see some ideas about justice. Anyway, I find fairness interesting.

Richard Lavoie runs a wonderful program about the learning disabled student. One of his topics is about fairness, and I absolutely love the way he puts it. There seems to be the common understanding that "fair" means everyone gets treated the same. Lavoie points out that's not the case (and since it is specifically an education workshop), he believes that fairness is giving each student what they need in order to succeed. When asking teachers if they would give an LD child an outline of notes to help them focus, he said the teacher's response most likely was "That wouldn't be fair to the other students." He quickly would come back arguing it's not about the others, if you were having a heart attack should I refuse to give you CPR, because I couldn't possibly do it for everyone in this room, thus it wouldn't be fair to them?" Of course not, his stance then is, if you're having a heart attack, you need CPR and therefor it's only fair that you receive it.

The question is then would you agree with that definition? And perhaps to apply it to the Lord of the Rings. Frodo gets an oppurtunity, he is faced with a choice. Is it fair that his cousins, because they were not chosen by Bilbo, don't get that oppurtunity? I don't know, it would depend upon your definition of what is fair. However, I would agree with Rick Lavoie's point, it would only be fair to Frodo if he received some kind of "treasure" for his sacrifices. And at the end of things, how much consolation was all that wealth to Frodo?

[Nogrod]

That was a nice example of faireness.

In the philosophy of justice it's pretty standard to point out to three different ways of looking at justice and fairness.

In a case of "equal cases" it's intuitively right to treat people in a similar way - like they should get paid the same for the same job, or if you get the proverbial apple with your friend you share it cutting it in half.

But if the cases are different then you need principles for different treatment.

One is to treat one according to merit so everyone should get what they deserve - like a better worker should be paid better, or a morally good person earns a place in Heaven while the evil one deserves Hell.

The other is to think the treatment from the point of view of needs and abilities - coming to your example. Like I'm a worker with a decent salary so I should pay taxes to help those who are in a poorer position: I'm able to give so I should. Then again someone needs financial help because of losing a job, losing a partner... and it's fair those in need are helped.


But when are we dealing with "equal cases" and when not? Which are the differences that do count? And how do we choose between the different maxims if we think the cases are not the same?

What I think I was saying there earlier is that we oftentimes take the merit-view for granted and forget the need-view - and that deciding on what merits this or that is a bit problematic.


Btw. anyone who has time or wishes could bring forth the next chapter! I'm not able to go forwards with this for a few days I'm afraid as I will have no time to read further until midweek...

And let the discussion flow!

[Thinlómien]

I've finally managed to get rid of the things that kept me too busy, I've finally managed to read the prologue and the two first chapters and I've finally managed to make it here. Yay! So, without further ramblings...


Prologue/Concerning Hobbits

The things that made me wonder here were two things rather loosely related to the main theme. They would probably merit threads of their own, but I will mention them briefly. First off, Tharbad. We know it was a city of men, we know where it was located and we know the year of its ruin and desertion (T.A. 2912). But what else? Who were these people who lived there? When was the city founded and by whom? What kind of political role did it play? I have never come across with any further information about the city yet the topic intrigues me...

The second thing is the Dúnedain protecting the Shire. I used to take it for granted and not to pay it any attention, but now it strikes me as rather questionable. Just why on earth did the Dúnedain devote themselves to nannying the Hobbits (and the Breelanders)? I know all this noble la-di-dah of protecting ordinary people and fighting the evil, but why? Just because it's morally right? Just because they feel they have a duty? Why would they feel so? Are they still sticking to their lost kingdom as when it still existed, the shirelings were under their protection? Just seems somehow... over-the-top. Were they there only for giving Tolkien a good excuse for making the Shire such a paradise? If someone could shed a bit more light on this issue, I would be grateful...

Then (sorry Nogrod ) I will comment on some of the social/class stuff that were brought up earlier.

I think Nogrod has a kind of point with the Fallohides, but "goes to the forest" (sorry, a Finnish saying, couldn't resist as it sounded so cute in English ) to a degree with his conclusions. The Fallohides were not, if you ask me, any better than the Stoors or the Harfoots. At least, to me they've always seemed like a bunch of good-for-nothings , while the Harfoots represent all the good Hobbit qualities. All the Hobbit heroes of LotR are Harfoots, granted some of them have Fallohide or Stoor blood in their veins.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But how about when the drop-out thinks differently than the community? What happened to the different hobbits? Were homosexual hobbits tolerated, not to ask accepted? Or what about if there were “Rules” of old that oppressed certain fractions of the community? Like the poor? Like women?

Now, this is even more interesting, especially as I happened to argue about whether homosexuality exists at all in Middle-Earth with a fellow 'downer in MSN not so long ago. However, they key thing here, I think, is that no one was really oppressed or discriminated in the Hobbit society. The rich helped the poor, women were (I think) rather equal with men even though the traditional gender roles were predominant (hmm... please, let's not talk about this because otherwise I might start ranting *would add smiley if hadn't passed the limit already*) and even those considered odd (like the Bagginses) were tolerated and had some friends. I think we could rather safely assume that homosexual Hobbits would be treated similarily. Gossiped about, and not always nicely, but in principle liked and tolerated and not shunned. Even though, I find the idea of a publicly gay Hobbit very hard to imagine. On the othe other hand, why would they then stay in the closet if it was not doomed? Or okay, homosexuality has been considered in certain societes (especially in agrarian societies like that of the Hobbits) either as a ghastly crime, or illness, but it has been considered sick and perverted in any case, pretty much the same way we now look at paedophiles. (Which is of course absurd, because it's a totally different issue, but let's not get into that.) So, maybe Hobbits would have had a similar attitude to gays as we have to paedophiles? Not a very nice thought, though...

As for literacy, I have never seen it as the manifestation of injustice in the Hobbit society. Rather, I feel that the Hobbit society was not that much based on it and only those learned to read who had an interest in it, it was a kind of hobby. This theory is, I think, supported by many things in the story (I'm too lazy to find the quotes though or to analyse the origins of my conceptions) BUT Tolkien is really giving rather contradictory information about this, as many things in the Hobbit society are related to the assumption that everybody can read, for example, it's much easier to keep track of genealogy if you can read and in the Scouring of the Shire there are written rules on the walls of the "guest-house" or whatever it is. One could assume that if Saruman's ruffians new hobbits were illiterate, they would not bother with written rules. Thus, I'm inclined to believe this is something Tolkien was accidentally inconsistent with.

Lastly, I think you Nogrod take the question of importance too seriously. I think the word "important" simply means that the families had power.

Ok, this is getting horribly long... I will make separate posts for the next chapters...

[Thinlómien]

What mostly caught my attention in this chapter was the sheer materialism of it. Just how much useless stuff do Hobbits produce if there's a birthday about every day and they give lots of presents, many of which end up as mathoms? And this is certainly not the only manifestation of ghastly Hobbit materialism... Okay, I need to cut this talk, I just seem to be more and more concerned about all this stuff lately - yesterday I spent about five minutes what a horrible waste crisis all the toothbrushes people use and throw away so carelessly create... I need to keep in mind that neither Hobbits nor Tolkien lived in a time in the brink of an environmental catastrophe and would not realise to be concenred about such stuff. Besides, one can always argue the Hobbits promoted local industry and economy by buying all this stuff and blah... (capitalism strikes again... eurgh. Where are you, Nogrod? )

Also, there are two examples of rather rude behaviour by nice Hobbits in this chapter. I wonder if it's because I don't get Brits'/Tolkien's/Hobbits' sense of humour or because it's really rather rude. First, there's this:

For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondance, with love from Bilbo; on a large waste-paper basket. Dora was Drogo's sister and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century.

I've always wondered about that and considered it rather rude and weird, but actually now that I wrote it here, I can suddenly see two ways of interpreting it. Yay! Maybe Bilbo and Dora were so close that this passed as a good-natured joke between them, or maybe the narrator's tone is actually a little sarcastic when saying she had written reams of good advice. However, I'd be interested to hear how others understand this...

Okay, and the second rude thing:

"You'll live to regret it, young fellow! Why didn't you got too? You don't belong here; you're no Baggins - you - you're a Brandybuck!"
"Did you hear that, Merry? That was an insult, if you like," said Frodo as he shut the door on her.
"It was a compliment," said Merry Brandybuck, "and so, of course, not true."

And really, again, I think I realised as soon as I wrote it here. Haha. I was wondering why does Merry tease Frodo this evilly, but now I realised Frodo actually starts it. So this is just affectionate teasing between freinds, and now it even makes sense to me why it takes place. I had always thought that teasing remark of Merry's a little weird... This CbC stuff is most enlightening.

And as for the coming of age mentioned here -
wouldn't it be easier for all of the teenagers/young adults of this world if all the parents would do like Bilbo: just disappear when the kid comes of age and leave him the house and the property?

Onto next chapter...

[Thinlómien]

First off, it intrigues me how Bilbo becomes the Mad Baggins of legends. I think the little detail of the stories of TH and LotR merging together clearly shows Tolkien's love of stories and fairytales, and his deep knowledge of them.

Also, funnily, like skip, I ended up wondering about the origin of the Ring-verse. Sauron made it, you say? Makes sense, if we take into account the fact that he wrote it on the One Ring. But how on earth did it become a part of Elvish ring-lore?? Did Sauron already write it in Eregion and told it to the Elves while laughing secretly to himself and then went and made the Ring? Or when he had made it, did he perhaps send the Elven smiths a message: "Hi I made a Ring and now I'll kill you all. Btw, here's a poem about the Rings I made. Mwahahahahaa." Weird.

Ok, on a totally different topic, I've always liked the way Tolkien talk about autumn here, how the Bagginses always yearn to travel in the autumn. I wonder if it's because of that that I and many other Tolkien fans I know feel an urge to return to Tolkien's books especially in autumn. Whatever the reason, it's very beautiful, I think.

Lastly, it's funny how it's dercibed how Frodo's longing for an adventure grows when he grows older. It got me wondering if the whole Quest only took place because Frodo had a middle-age crisis...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

How the Ring verse got into Elven lore is no real puzzle at all, I think. During the Council of Elrond, Gandalf says of the verse,

Out of the Black Years came the words that the Smiths of Eregion heard, and knew that they had been betrayed.

The verse is not just a creepy poem; it is, I believe, the spell through which Sauron bound the lesser rings to his, including the Three which he apparently knew about, but had never touched. It's not terribly surprising that the Elves would remember it. How they heard it, or if only those who owned the Three heard it, is perhaps the only real puzzle. That and where Sauron learned how to make such nice poetry (though if he could invent the Black Speech, one might suppose that he if no one else could write poems in it ).

The rather conspicuous consumerism of the Hobbits also doesn't surprise me overmuch. Even though they were unaware of it, their land was being protected from some of the worst hardships of the world. Unlike virtually every other corner of Middle-earth, they had no need to support a standing militia to protect their lands and their borders; the last Enemy incursion they were required to fight directly happened quite some time ago, by the time of LotR. Not that they couldn't have defended themselves, but when there is no need to do so for long periods of time, people forget, evil things become fodder for pub tales and scary bedtime stories, and the resources that might have been used to support an army or some such are turned to other, more pleasant things. If the Shire had suffered from drought or blights on a regular basis, there doubtless would have been a greater prudence and wariness about the future, but they seem (to me, at least) to have reached a state where the average Hobbit doesn't worry about being attacked or about where the next meal will come from (even if some folk have fancier meals than others). As Gandalf has said about them, you have to put a Hobbit in a pinch to see what is truly in them, and since they seem to have an uncanny knack for avoiding pinches, it's no wonder they appear bucolic, naive, and fond of pleasures and comforts.

I believe that's part of the point of Bilbo's extravagant party at the beginning. It's a kind of conspicuous consumerism at its height in the Shire -- but once the party is over, literally, reality comes in and rears its ugly head. It's time for all the Hobbits to grow up as a people, to take their place in the world as a part of it, able to both provide for themselves and defend themselves. We see this growth in the Hobbits that become part of the quest, and it is reflected back home, where we don't see it until the end. I always found this rather nicely done; the perils and trials of the four Hobbit companions reflected some of the things that were happening in the Shire, which we didn't see (in more than rumors or prescient glimpses) until they returned home, when it was no longer quite the surprise it might have been, had any of the four remained naive until the end. LotR thus has a more "happily ever after" feeling at its beginning than at its end, which is almost more "once upon a time," an end that is a new beginning.

Whoa, where did that come from? The things that creep out of my head after morning meditation...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

The things that made me wonder here were two things rather loosely related to the main theme. They would probably merit threads of their own, but I will mention them briefly. First off, Tharbad. We know it was a city of men, we know where it was located and we know the year of its ruin and desertion (T.A. 2912). But what else? Who were these people who lived there? When was the city founded and by whom? What kind of political role did it play? I have never come across with any further information about the city yet the topic intrigues me...

Okay, this is not exactly on topic, but concerning this, there are some passages which at least briefly speak about Tharbad and the region around it in the Unfinished Tales, I think it's the "additions" after the tale of Aldarion and Erendis. Quite some stuff, about Númenoreans coming to Middle-Earth and making their first havens there...

However, they key thing here, I think, is that no one was really oppressed or discriminated in the Hobbit society. The rich helped the poor, women were (I think) rather equal with men even though the traditional gender roles were predominant (hmm... please, let's not talk about this because otherwise I might start ranting *would add smiley if hadn't passed the limit already*) and even those considered odd (like the Bagginses) were tolerated and had some friends. I think we could rather safely assume that homosexual Hobbits would be treated similarily. Gossiped about, and not always nicely, but in principle liked and tolerated and not shunned. Even though, I find the idea of a publicly gay Hobbit very hard to imagine.

Actually, of all the societies in Middle-Earth, I can imagine gay Hobbits probably the best. And I would rather stay with what you said at first: that homosexual Hobbits would be treated similarly. If there were any existing in there, I think except for a few Sandymans to gossip, they might be quite widely well accepted.

and in the Scouring of the Shire there are written rules on the walls of the "guest-house" or whatever it is. One could assume that if Saruman's ruffians new hobbits were illiterate, they would not bother with written rules.

Speaking of this, I might add that I wonder whether the Ruffians could read... I'd actually wonder if they did. But maybe Saruman, being the propagator of "Knowledge, Rule, Order" made all his servants as educated as possible, literacy included? Anyway, this is off-topic - let's save this for the final chapters of the re-read

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, there are two examples of rather rude behaviour by nice Hobbits in this chapter. I wonder if it's because I don't get Brits'/Tolkien's/Hobbits' sense of humour or because it's really rather rude.

You kind of answered yourself during the course of writing , but at least to me, it never seemed rude. Although somebody said that Czech and English people have similar sense of humour - but personally, I don't think it would be THAT different with these "regional humours". Anyway, Merry's joke is just very good, I have never noticed what Frodo says before really, but I think what Merry says is just a very nice, very clever and simply just brilliant way to make a joke like that. It's that kind of "intelligent way of saying something rude, while making it also really funny in the process".
And as for how I understood the present for Dora, I always imagined it like that when writing to Bilbo and Frodo, she may have produced also lots of "by-products" or badly written letters which she later decided to throw away. However Bilbo's intention may be interpretated otherwise, I certainly wouldn't even think of looking for any sarcasm from the author's part in it.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

How the Ring verse got into Elven lore is no real puzzle at all, I think. During the Council of Elrond, Gandalf says of the verse,

The verse is not just a creepy poem; it is, I believe, the spell through which Sauron bound the lesser rings to his, including the Three which he apparently knew about, but had never touched. It's not terribly surprising that the Elves would remember it. How they heard it, or if only those who owned the Three heard it, is perhaps the only real puzzle. That and where Sauron learned how to make such nice poetry (though if he could invent the Black Speech, one might suppose that he if no one else could write poems in it ).

Sauron sure was a great poet; remember, he was a Necromancer, or rather THE Necromancer (something like THE Ka), and remember his "battle" of songs with Finrod... in M-E, every "Wizard", resp. "Spell-caster" was also a singer and a poet, or at least one of those. Saruman was at least a rhetor, if nothing else... The power of words... hmm... that would almost do for a thread...
And yes, I agree what you say about hearing the words. It is obvious from the text that the Elves heard it, imagine whatever you wish under it, I always imagined it the way it's said, but you can think of any theories yourself, like "clairaudience" or "teleempathy" or whatever. Isn't this referred to in any Letter, by the way? Just asking.

I had some ideas also to comment on from the posts above, but I don't recall now... maybe fortunately, thinking about the length...